Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-2622.Palkowski.92-09-24 ONTARIO EMP£ OY~-S OE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DC/NDAS STREET WEST, $,L,qTE 2 ~00, TOFtONTO, ONTARIO. M'~G 180, FtC/u= DUND'A$ OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). MSG lZ8 F.~CSIMiLE, T~L~-COP~E . 2622/91 IN THE MATTER .OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Palkowski) Grlevor - and- The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE: A. Barrett Vice-Chairperson R. Klym Member M. O' Toole Member FOR THE J. Gosal UNION Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE J. Benedict EMPLOYER Manager, Staff Relations & Compensation Ministry of Correctional Services HEARING July 15, 1992 DECISION Mr. Pal~owski, who is a maintenance plumber at the Hamilton- Wentworth Detention Centrer Grieves a one-day disciplinary suspension which was imposed on him on December 17, 1991. The reasons for the discipline were set out in a letter from the Deputy Superintendent to Mr. Palkowski dated December 3, 1991 which is reproduced below: "Dear Mr. ?alkows~i A meeting was held in the Boardroom of the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre on Friday, November 29, 1991 at 1430 hours to discuss the allegation: 'That on November 5, 1991 you left work early without permission and falsified the attendance register; and that on November 6, 1991 you were insubordinate to your supervisor; and that on November 6, 1991 you threatened your supervisor.' Present were yourself; Mr. P. LaCourse, your employee representative; Mr. R. Kalnins, Senior Assistant Superintendent Corrections; and myself. Information was presented to support the allegation and you and your representative were Given the opportunity to refute or mitigate the information presented. I have now reached a decision reGardinG this incident. I have concluded that you did leave early without permission and that you falsified the attendance register. I also have concluded that you were insubordinate to your supervisor. In respect to the aspect of the allegation concerning threatening your supervisor; I have decided that your statements could have been misunderstood. Therefore, I have decided to impose a one day suspension without pay. The date of this suspension will be December 17, 1991~ You are also cautioned that further actions of this type will not be tolerated and may result in more serious disciplinar~ action being taken against you. Yours truly, F. W. Morris Deputy Superintendent FWM/mf' 2 The facts are not really in dispute. Mr. Palkowski left work 25 minutes early on November 5, 1991 but signed out on the attendance register at his regular quitting time. He did this because he had worked during part o£ his lunch hour and his afternoon coffee break and felt he was owed the time. He did not seek permission to leave early, however, because his supervisor, Mr. Jongerden, was not on the premises and Mr. Palkowski did not know who was filling in £or him in his absence. He could have enquired, or asked some other management person Zor permission, but he did not feel the matter was significant enough to warrant it. Mr. Hogarth, the Senior Assistant Superintendent of Administration/Services, found out about the early signout on November 5th shortly after it occurred. On November 6th, he told Mr. Jongerden to investigate the matter and get a written report £rom the grievor on the incident. On November 6th, the grievor came into the maintenance shop to ask Mr. Jongerden if he could leave two hours early that day and use up time that was owing to him. Mr. Jongerden granted the permission, then asked the grievor who had given him permission to leave early the day before. Mr. Palkowski conceded that no one had ~iven him permission but since he had worked through his coffee and lunch break, he was entitled to leave early. Mr. Jongerden then instructed Mr. Palkowski to write a report indicating why he had left early and who had given him permission 3 to do so, and to hand it in prior to his leaving the premises in about ~0 minutes time. The grievor emphatically refused to write a report because he felt that Mr. JonGerden was being petty about the matter and abusing his authority. When asked again to write the report, he said he was too sick to write any report and was going home immediately. Ne did not leave immediately though, and about 15 minutes later he stopped by Mr. Jongerden's office and told him that he knew he had taken items belonging to the Ministry and converted them to his own use. Mr. Jongerden then asked him to leave and he did so. The next morning, Mr. Palkowski went to Mr. Jongerden and offered to write the report. Mr. Jongerden told him it was too late; he had already reported the matter to Mr. Hogarth. Mr. Jongerden testified at the hearing that if Mr. Palkowski had written the report when requested to do so, he would probably just have counselled him about leaving early without permission, but the matter would have ended there. It was the insubordination on November 6th, that was considered to be the more serious delict. When Mr. Hogarth reviewed the matter, he noted that report writing for Mr. Palkowski has been an ongoing problem. In September, 1991, he was counselled in writing about his re[usal to write a report concerning another incident, although he eventually wrote the report on that occasion. He was clearly counselled in that letter that, from time to time, he would be required to write reports and that he must do it whenever requested to do so by his supervisor. 4 Mr. Palkowski testified that he became infuriated with Mr. Jongerden after the third or fourth request to a write a report because he felt Mr. Jongerden was abusing his authority by asking for a report about such a trifling mattgr. Mr. Palkowski had over 20 years experience as a plumber but only two years experience as a civil servant at the time this discipline was imposed. He is not used to the many formal policies and procedures and multi-layered management the government deploys. Unfortunately, these policies and procedures are a necessary evil for such a large and public employer. Mr. Jongerden was asked by his supervisor to request a report from the griever and he had no'option but to do so. ~he griever's refusal amounted to insubordination, which was properly the subject of discipline, particularly in light of the letter of counsel about report writing delivered just a couple of months earlier. The discipline imposed was within the reasonable range of employer responses and we would not interfere with it. In the result, the grievance is dismissed. Dated at Toronto this 24th day of September 1992. A. Barrett, Vice-Chairperson "I Dissent" (dissent attached) P. Kllrm, Member ~o O'~oole~ember DISSENT RE: 2622/91 OPSEU (Palkowski) and the Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) I have read the majority award and find that I must dissent in strong terms as I feel that their conclusion results in a serious injustice to the grievor. The grievor, in a conscientious manner and on his own initiative gave up lunch and break time to complete an urgent job. Upon completion of the work 25 minutes before his normal quitting time, he left because at least this amount of time was owing to him. This apparently was not an unusual .practice for the employees in his work group. He could not report to Mr. Jorgenson, his supervisor, because he had left for the day. Nor did Mr. Jorgenson leave anyone in charge of the work group for the grievor to report that he was leaving. At the start of the following work day, Mr. Jorgenson's supervisor told him to investigate the matter of the early sign out. Mr. Jorgenson took no action regarding this matter all day until the grievor approached him in the afternoon to ask permission to leave early, using up time owed to him. Obviously Mr. Jorgenson did not consider this incident of leaving early on the previous day as a serious matt'er since he let it sit all day. This is substantiated by his testimony that, at most, he would have counselled the grievor about following a procedure to get official permission to leave before his normai quitting time. The evidence before us was clear that the grievor was irked when Mr. Jorgenson was demanding that he write a report of this incident when he was almost ready to leave for the rest of the day on November 6th. In addition the grievor was not feeling well and because it appeared to him that the supervisor was simply trying to exercise his authority by demanding a written report there and then. By the 'time the grievor returned to work the following morning he was prepared to write the report requested. He sought out Mr. Jorgenson the first thing in the morning and offered to write the report then. Mr. Jorgenson refused. Why? I do not accept his explanation that he had already submitted his report to his boss and it was too late. I note that Mr. Jorgenson's report to Mr. Morris, Deputy Superintendent, is dated November 7, 1991. (Exhibit 3). I also note that the grievor approached him with the offer to write his incident report at the start of the shift on November 7, 1991. I find this explanation by Mr. Jorgenson lacking credibility. In any event, even if he had written his report he could easily have decided not to send it on. Even if the grievor had been wrong on November 6th in refusing to write the incident report at the time, he offered to do so at the first next opportunity he had. What harm was there in tlhis short delay? In my opinion Mr. Jorgenson simply decided to take an unnecessary vindictive stand against the grievor because of their disagreement the previous day, rather than take a more sensible labour relations approach. He wanted to play being boss and unnecessarily escalated what was barely a mole hill into a mountain. This resulted in using up a large amount of time and resources on what was really a very minor matter. Perhaps the wrong person got disciplined. I would have granted this grievance. P. Klym, Member